Lawyer: Grant Trumann Cop Killer New Trial Because Of Judge's Errors

Thursday

Nov 14, 2013 at 3:10 AMNov 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

LITTLE ROCK — A man sentenced to die for killing a Trumann police officer did not receive a fair trial because of errors committed by a judge who was too sympathetic to the victim’s family, an attorney argued Thursday before the state Supreme Court.

LITTLE ROCK — A man sentenced to die for killing a Trumann police officer did not receive a fair trial because of errors committed by a judge who was too sympathetic to the victim’s family, an attorney argued Thursday before the state Supreme Court.

An attorney with the state attorney general’s office argued that the judge’s decisions were correct in the capital-murder trial of Jerry Lard, but that if any errors did occur, they would not have changed the outcome.

The high court heard oral arguments but did not immediately issue a ruling in an appeal by Lard, who was convicted in Greene County Circuit Court of capital murder and sentenced to die in the April 12, 2011, fatal shooting of Trumann police officer Jonathan Schmidt during a traffic stop.

Lard also was convicted of attempted capital murder and sentenced to life in prison for shooting at Schmidt’s partner, Sgt. Corey Overstreet.

A video camera from a police car captured audio of Schmidt pleading off-screen for his life before being shot. At Lard’s trial, his attorneys conceded that he shot Schmidt but argued that he should be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

"Unfortunately the trial judge … let his sympathy for the victim’s family get in the way of his duty," Janice Vaughn, the attorney handling Lard’s appeal, told the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Vaughn argued that Lard deserves a new trial because of errors by Circuit Judge Brent Davis, including his decision to let Schmidt’s wife, brother and father stay in the courtroom throughout the trial even though they were scheduled to testify, over the defense’s objections.

Justice Courtney Goodson noted that the sequestering of witnesses is intended to prevent them from changing their testimony to hide inconsistencies, and that Schmidt’s family members only testified during the penalty phase of the trial, not the guilt-or-innocence phase.

Vaughn argued that the jury could have been affected by seeing the family members’ reactions to 10 days of testimony before hearing their testimony.

"They got to know the witnesses," she said.

Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Kane said there was nothing other than speculation to support the argument that allowing the victims’ family to stay in the courtroom prejudiced the jury.

"It’s speculative to say that the jurors even knew who these individuals were," she said.

Vaughn also argued that Davis admitted an "unbelievable amount" of the state’s evidence aimed at convincing the jury of Lard’s bad character, which she said was improper because Lard’s defense was based on a claim that he had a mental disease or defect, not on his character.

Evidence that Lard had manufactured methamphetamine, had outstanding warrants and had a tattoo on his back which included the word "hellbound" was among the evidence that was improperly admitted, Vaughn argued.

Kane told the court that Lard’s criminal record was relevant because it showed his motive for shooting Schmidt rather than submitting to arrest. She said the tattoo was designed by Lard and was introduced to rebut the defense’s claim that he had very limited mental ability.

If any of the evidence was admitted in error, the error was harmless because the outcome of the trial would have been the same regardless, Kane argued.

Vaughn argued that if some of the state’s evidence about Lard’s past had been excluded, the jury might have found him guilty of first-degree murder or reached a verdict of not guilty by reason of a mental disease or defect.